Monday, May 24, 2010

I'm so fucking lame

Well I've finally purchased a CD this year. Apologies to all the starving, worthy Indie bands out there who can't even afford a beard trimmer. Regrets to all the struggling record stores in the world. Yours truly got the new "Exile On Main Street" re-master at Target. I was actually hoping to save another couple bucks by getting it at Costco, but they seem to be phasing out music. What's their problem? Anyway, just doing my part so Mick can afford his hair dye and Keith has enough man-bangles to last him another century or two.

It sounds beautiful, awesome. The re-mastering is a revelation, almost to the point of distraction. Though I'm sure there are folk who simply don't dig it, few would deny the quality of their work during this period. And I don't know about all of you, but I had a really shitty record player when I was a kid, so re-masters from this era are always a treat (that's also the reason I just can't cotton to the vinyl over CD thing).

NIce read in the NYT if you're a fan, little disappointed to discover that some of the bonus tracks are reconstituted with new vocals, but they're actually pretty good and it's interesting to discover they've been doing that for years. Here's a quote from Don Was about the alt. take of "Loving Cup" and I think their groove in general:

“There’s a sound that’s identified with ‘Exile’ that’s become part of the vocabulary for every rock ‘n’ roll musician subsequently,” he said. “And this is the ultimate track of the style that characterizes ‘Exile.’ It’s not sloppiness; it’s width, in terms of where everyone feels the beat. You’ve got five individuals feeling the beat in a different place. At some point, the centrifugal force of the rhythm no longer holds the band together. That ‘Loving Cup’ is about the widest area you can have without the song falling apart.”

Compare that to the Ramones, for example, who(bless their heart but) I'm pretty sure all felt the beat in the exact same place.

10 comments:

hahaha, nice one, Gabino. I read that story in the NYT this past weekend and thought about mentioning it with regards to the piracy questions. Like, is it morally wrong for me to ask you to send that to me instead of me buying it (this perhaps depriving Kief of one measly bangle)?

but anyway, I'm fascinated with that early 70s era of Stones decadence and I would love to check that out.

Have you read Exile on Main Street: A season in Hell With the Rolling Stones? Here's a list of my two favorite albums: 1. Frank Black - Teenager of the Year 2. Rolling Stones - Exile on Main Street. Still, that book made me listen to the album in a different way...you begin to hear how it's pieced together. The big knock on The Stones, as far as I can tell, is exactly that. The Stones define a certain type of rock cool. But listen to Who's Next and tell me they weren't BY FAR a better band.

Rootless I've been thinking about getting some DVDs mailing around, but you know my rate of acquisition is pretty slow.

I think most albums are pieced together, aren't they? Miles and Teo Macero come to mind. I think it's a great credit to the Stones that they could assemble something so organic and effortless sounding in the studio. Despite the decadence they seemed pretty meticulous about their work.

As for the Who, they have some great moments and I would never dis them, but they just aren't my guys. Definitely a different band, that's for sure, but a better band? Hmmmm.

if anyone ever sees the episode of that show "Classic Albums" about the Who's "Who's Next" I would highly recommend watching it..... speaking of gaining a deeper understanding of how an album was crafted. Ive always loved the Who, but after watching that it really hit home what a fricking genius Pete Townshend is

too bad they didn't do any of those "Classic Albums" shows about the Rolling Stones.... Exile on Main Street in particular would be ripe for one

Downloaded the bonus tracks only from Rhapsody, listened to them today on my lunch hour. Not disappointed, not thrilled. I think I would have realized that the vocals were late additions even had I not known in advance.

This remastering shit is on my last nerve. I'm gonna throw away my limited edition "album cover" CD from the 90's, throw away the LP I got off some kid for $3 the last time the thing was remastered (alas, the post cards were gone . . . but the "album cover" limited CD has scale replicas!), and listen to the damn thing on the shitty commercial cassette I first owned it on.

Oh, OK, I can't fucking resist. I'm going to get it for the remaster.

Actually, I'm not sure why everyone concedes that Exile is the pinnacle for the Stones. I think Sticky Fingers and Beggar's Banquet are as good, and I think Let It Bleed is better.

And as far as the Stones v. the Who are concerned, I've got to come down solidly in the Stones camp. There was a time in my life when I listened to the Who every single day, sometimes for hours. I saw The Kids Are Alright multiple times before I even knew anybody who owned a VCR. I went and saw an early showing of Quadrophenia the weekend it opened just so I could stay and watch it three more times that day. For a while, the world revolved around the Who for me.

And yet, it's only the Rolling Stones who really hold my attention to this day. I'll occasionally pull out a Who album, but I actively listen to the Stones. As much as I loved them, to me the only album the Who ever did that is on level with the best of the Stones is Live at Leeds. Why? Because that's the only album that unequivocally demonstrates that the Who understand rock and/or roll.

OK, so now I've read the NYT article, and I pretty much fall in the same place. I'm going to have to listen to the alternate of "Loving Cup" again, though, 'cause I wasn't blown away by it like this guy apparently was.

I don't think I could pick a favorite Stones album from that Beggars Banquet to Exile run. Exile has the most myth around it for whatever reason, which kind of makes it the most interesting to revisit.